INDIAN BANK CHD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/Bank challenging the order dtd. 4/1/2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Kaithal u/s 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'). One of the grounds taken by the petitioner/Bank is that the District Magistrate, Kaithal, while exercising powers u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, has gone into the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the borrower, which is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Limited and Others, 2023 (1) SCC 675.

(2.) It is now well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the District Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ministerial in nature, with no trappings of adjudication. Thus, merits of the dispute between the parties cannot be gone into.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order passed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the District Magistrate, Kaithal, reveals that the District Magistrate has gone beyond the scope of jurisdiction by entering into merits of the dispute, as is evident from the various observations and findings recorded therein. The District Magistrate, Kaithal has gone to the extent of calling for and considering objections from a third party, a course of action which is not contemplated within the limited powers conferred upon District Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The relevant observations and findings recorded in the impugned order, demonstrating such jurisdictional overreach, are reproduced herein below:-